New Mexico state representatives Stefani Lord and John Block are calling for the impeachment of Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham after Grisham issued an emergency order suspending the right to carry firearms in public in and around Albuquerque, the state’s largest city.

The governor on Friday issued an emergency order suspending the right to carry firearms in public across Albuquerque and the surrounding county for at least 30 days amid a spate of gun violence.

“This is an abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical, progressive agenda on an unwilling populace. Rather than addressing crime at its core, Governor Grisham is restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” the statement from Lord read.

Grisham said she felt compelled to act in response to gun deaths, including the fatal shooting of an 11-year-old boy outside a minor league baseball stadium this week.

  • BaroqueInMind
    link
    fedilink
    5
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The real reason for the 2nd is to legit kill tyrants like Trump if he tries to illegally stay in power and protect vulnerable minorities like LGBTQ+ communities.

    The problem is the Democrats have been successfully making guns scary to you, and now racist white Christofacists and cops maintain the monopoly on violence, so if you wanted to protest they can simply scare you away with threats (and sometimes actual) violence and because you are a toothless bitch you cant fight back without certain and pointless death.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -41 year ago

      Do they really maintain a monopoly on violence though? Almost anyone can get a gun. Moreso now than most recent points in American history if I understand the recent decisions regarding constitutional carry. Whether you’re on the right talking about “urban crime” and how Chicago’s daily forecast is supposed to be a storm of bullets, or on the left trying to do something about nutjobs with AKs in elementary schools and grocery stores, it’s pretty easy to see the government doesn’t maintain a monopoly on violence.

    • r_wraith
      link
      fedilink
      -6
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And there I thought the young man’s testosterone fantasy of you and your buddies successfully fighting off the best equipped army in the world armed only with your private gun stash was the domain of right wing loons.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        With respect this is a straw man argument. You don’t address @BaroqueInMind’s point- that 2A is designed to protect against government overreach by people who would ignore the Constitution, and for self-defense.
        Nobody wants to fight the US army with a basement gun stash.

        • @uberkalden
          link
          61 year ago

          Is that not what opposing a tyrannical government ultimately comes down to?

          • @fuckwit_mcbumcrumble
            link
            English
            21 year ago

            Hopefully it never needs to get to that point because of the threat. But that’s literally what we did in the revolutionary war.

        • r_wraith
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          As far as I see it, @BaroqueInMind was trying to make two points:

          1. “The real reason for the 2nd is to legit kill tyrants”
          2. “(Without guns) you are a toothless bitch you cant fight back without certain and pointless death.”

          So his points are that the 2A guarantee his right to assassinate the President, if he decides that he is a tyrant and for armed resistance againt an executive force of the government.

          I argued that fighting the US government’s forces with handguns and winning is a testosterone fantasy.

          So where exactly is my Straw Man?

          The 2A may have been meant to protect a “free state” but in today’s reality, it fails to achieve this goal. On the other hand, the laws arguing from it, have lead to the greatest number of civilian gun deaths outside an active war zone.

          • @fuckwit_mcbumcrumble
            link
            English
            21 year ago

            al-Qaeda + isis held off multiple nations military for almost 20 years.

            Why would a civil war where half of your military isn’t blindly loyal going to be any better? Killing your friends and neighbors for the state is a lot different than killing someone you’ve never met before.

            • @uberkalden
              link
              21 year ago

              I know you’re not the original poster, but you are just confirming the argument wasn’t a straw man. The belief is that basements full of guns will effectively combat the US military

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            Your straw man is that it’s a testosterone fantasy, and that the idea is to fight off the US Army with someone’s basement guns. I’m saying the straw many is largely your representation of attitude.

            Look at Al-Qaeda and ISIS. They had little more than AKs, no electronics more than cell phones, and they managed to drive us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. So let’s agree that it is POSSIBLE for a weaker force to defend against a stronger force, albeit with higher loss rates, especially if the weaker force blends in with a civilian population.

            However Al-Qaeda is a bad example. A much better one is the Bundy standoff from 5ish years ago. And that shows a big part of the usefulness of guns- increasing the cost of using force.
            Now for the record Bundy was an asshole so don’t take this as me idolizing him. But the situation is a useful example.
            Put simply- there was a dispute about whether Bundy was allowed to graze cattle on some public lands. Bundy claimed a legal ancestral right, government claimed ancestral rights were removed because endangered turtles lived on the lands, but the government would still allow him to graze the cattle for a steep fee. Bundy refused to pay, so the government sent in workers to seize his cattle.
            Bundy and his followers then took up armed positions to defend the cattle. The message was simple- it will take a firefight to get you the cattle. Everybody (including Bundy and his followers) knew the government would probably win, a bunch of ranchers with guns isn’t going to fight off the National Guard. BUT, it would also mean a lot of blood spilled on both sides. As in, ‘think twice guys, is seizing a few cows worth another Ruby Ridge type fiasco?’
            Fortunately cool heads prevailed, the government backed down and agreed to bring the issue back to the courts.

            The lesson remains though. A bunch of armed ranchers ‘defended’ against the mighty US government without ever firing a shot, simply because them being armed raised the cost of using force against them. If they’d not been armed, the government would have sent in riot cops with batons to beat them all up and arrest them and that’d have been that.

            And THAT is why I say that defending against tyrants is still a valid goal of 2A. Because defending against tyranny doesn’t even necessarily mean killing tyrants, sometimes it just means making oneself a harder target to tyrannize.

            (And once again, I should clarify I’m not necessarily siding with Bundy. I’m just pointing out that from his POV the government was being tyrannical, and his resistance against what he saw as tyranny WAS effective.)

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          and for self-defense

          Love how you tag on a deeply held constitutional right that didn’t exist until 15 years ago. @[email protected]’s point explicitly does not reference that newly established right and the whole implication of “the real reason” is that self-defense is not actually what the 2nd is about.

          The populace should have more mortars and RPGs and fewer handguns.

        • r_wraith
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago
          1. Not my government (Not from the US).
          2. If you want to see what the reaction to an armed insurection would be, I reccomend the American Civil War. Or do you really think that today’s “tyranical government” is that much more restrained than Lincoln’s government was?